The King v Wahhaj Shakir

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)
• Judge: Richards, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2025
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: 2024: No. 20

The King

and

Wahhaj Shakir

Richards, J.

2024: No. 20

Supreme Court

Appearances:

Mr. Daniel Kitson-Walters and Ms. Taneka King, Crown Counsel, for the Prosecution.

Ms. Victoria Greening, Resolution Chambers, for the Defendant.

SENTENCING REMARKS

Richards, J.

1 Mr. Shakir, in the order in which they appear on the Indictment, I have to sentence you for offences of Having a Bladed Article in a Public Place, Possession of Ammunition Without a Licence and Possession of a Prohibited Firearm. Minimum sentence provisions apply to all three of those offences under our Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, 1973. It is, however, settled law, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Cox and Dillas [2008] C.A. (Bda) 20 Crim., that such provisions are subject to the proportionality requirement of section 54 of the Criminal Code. To quote the Court of Appeal in the more recent case of Christopher Perinchief [2022] C.A. (Bda) 23 Crim.: “if a judge is going to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum he or she can only do so on the grounds of disproportionality and it is only going to be an exceptional case where that will apply”.

2 On Count 1, the statutory minimum sentence in this court is 5 years' imprisonment and the statutory maximum is 7 years' imprisonment (section 315C(6)(b) of the Criminal Code).

3 On Counts 2 and 3, the statutory minimum sentence in this court is 12 years' imprisonment and the statutory maximum is 17 years' imprisonment (Schedule 1 of the Firearms Act, 1973).

4 Since it is agreed that it would be appropriate to impose concurrent sentences in this case, the sentences I impose on Counts 2 and 3 will necessarily determine how long your overall sentence will be.

5 The Prosecution is seeking the imposition of the statutory minimum sentences in this case. In support of the correctness of such a disposal, they have referred me to the case of Romano Mills [2015] C.A. (Bda) 17 Crim., in which the Court of Appeal upheld the imposition of sentences of 12 years' imprisonment for the same two offences. The Appellant in that matter had entered what were described as “early” guilty pleas.

6 In response, your Counsel Ms. Greenig has highlighted some factual dissimilarities between that case and this. Mr. Mills was in physical possession of the firearm and ammunition in that case, in addition to some drugs. He violently resisted police officers when arrested. He also had some previous convictions, which you do not, but they were said to be of “no relevance to the present sentence”.

7 In my recent sentencing decision of Jomari Gooden [2025] S.C. (Bda) 60 Crim. (who was of previous good character, like you), I dealt with a factual scenario similar to Mills. I reviewed a number of past decisions of this Court.

8 In Winston Paynter [2023] S.C. (Bda) 33 Cri, the Defendant was convicted of possession of six rounds of ammunition (and no firearm) that were recovered from what the prosecution said was his home. They were discovered during a search precipitated by his arrest at another location. I was the prosecutor in that case and my now brother Wolffe, J. rejected my submission that the minimum sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was appropriate. In that case His Lordship was obliged to impose another substantial custodial sentence for a drugs offence, which had to run consecutively to the ammunition sentence and so he reduced the total sentence, but he said clearly that the minimum sentence for the ammunition “should really only be reserved for those who have pleaded guilty”, reiterating a conclusion he reached in James Rumley [2021] S.C. (Bda) 17 Crim. – sentence upheld on appeal see: [2021] C.A. (Bda) 18 Crim. That case involved importation of firearm parts, but no ammunition. In both Paynter and Rumley, this Court reached the conclusion that the appropriate sentence for the firearms offences was one of 14 years.

9 In Gooden, I also considered the case of Jaron Roberts Indictment 26 of 2021 which, like Mills and Gooden, concerned mobile physical possession of a loaded gun. In that case, Wolffe, J. imposed a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment for the firearms offences. It is also important to note that Mr. Roberts had a particularly relevant previous conviction. I therefore concluded that it would not be appropriate for Mr. Gooden to receive a sentence quite as long as Mr. Roberts did.

10 Having considered these authorities and some others, I came to the conclusion that the appropriate starting point in the Gooden case was 15 years' imprisonment, although I ultimately imposed slightly shorter sentences.

11 Your case is similar to Mills, Roberts and Gooden in that you had possession of both a functioning firearm and ammunition. However, it is dissimilar in that you were...